CategoriesJoin Us At:
|
Right to Marry: Yes We Should!
Three couples. Three minutes. They show us the human cost of denying gay and lesbian couples the fundamental right to marry. All couples should be allowed to say "Yes We Can" to marriage.
We intend the comments portion of this blog to be a forum where you can freely express your views on blog postings and on comments made by other people. Given that, please understand that you are responsible for the material you post on the comments portion of this blog. The only postings that we ask that you refrain from posting and that we cannot permit on our website are requests for legal assistance and postings that could cause ACLU to incur legal liability.
One important law in that regard is the prohibition on politically partisan activity. Given our nonprofit status, we may not endorse or oppose candidates for elective office. That means we cannot host comments on our site that show a preference for one candidate or party. Although we in no way wish to discourage you from that activity elsewhere, we ask that you not engage in that activity on our website (or include links to other websites that do so). Additionally, given that we are subject to very specific rules concerning the collection of personally identifying information through our website (names, email addresses, home address, financial information, etc.), we ask that you not use the comments portion of this blog to solicit this information from users of our website. We also ask that you not use the comments portion for advertising or requests for legal assistance, and do not add to your comment links to other websites, as we cannot be responsible for the content on other websites. We are not able to respond to unsolicited inquiries, complaints or requests for assistance sent to this blog. Please direct your complaint or request for assistance to the ACLU affiliate in your state. Requests for legal assistance left in the blog comments will not receive a response or be published. Finally, the ACLU cannot guarantee the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information in the comment section and expressly disclaims any liability for any information in this section. 82 Responses to "Right to Marry: Yes We Should!" |
|
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 |
Nov 6th, 2008 at 2:18pm
Instead of approaching the legislation and fighting the issue of changing the constitution of Marriage, why not change the law for Marriage. If you marry, there is no anulment, you cannot divorce and if you cheat (commit adultery) you are find, imprisoned and considered a crimminal. IF HETROSEXUALS WANT THEIR MARRIAGE SACRED, THEN GIVE IT TO THEM WITH PENALTIES AND TOTALLY MAKE IT A MORAL LAW.
While I sure, that the proposal will be met with distaste, it could then be used that the changing of the constitution to prevent same sex marriage is equally distasteful. USE THE RELIGION AGAINST THEM AND DEMONSTRATE THAT CHURCH AND STATE DOES NOT MIX.
Nov 6th, 2008 at 3:55pm
Whether you are for or against gay marriage, the people of California have spoken and have said that they do not want gay marriage in their state. I wish the ACLU would stop trying to change this country in the court system....so you all are for freedom of speech, but not for democracy i see.
Nov 6th, 2008 at 4:22pm
i don't understand whats the problem. God instutited marriages for the purpose of reproduction. marriage is never nor will never be accepted by society. now for all of u who likes to eat other people toxic waste. let your master come up with a plan to make you feel better about defying God. read and study romans chapter 1:18-end.
Nov 6th, 2008 at 7:45pm
Just say NO, to counterfeits!
The ACLU is not about "civil rights" , it is about a leftist, socialist, degenerate agenda.
Nov 7th, 2008 at 3:07am
miss emmm... i do believe that under the constitution, if the bible is the only basis for the prop then it would be invalidated right? because church and state simply do not mix. but to play your game: Romans also says (2:1)" You may think you can condemn such people, but you are just as bad, and you have no excuse! When you say they are wicked and should be punished, you are condemning yourself, for you who judge others do these very same things."
let the others make their "immoral choice" to be married with the one they love and let GOD decide in the end who gets to go to heaven and who doesn't. It does not hurt you to allow gays to get married.
on a complete side note: are you ultimately denying god's decisions? because i assure you, noone would, given the choice, would volunteerily want to be gay considering the vast amount of hatred there is for them. Thus god made them that way. and god never makes mistakes.
*note: "you" is referring to everyone who is against gay marriage.
Nov 8th, 2008 at 10:59pm
The constitution is not something change on a whim. I wonder if the constitution had been amended making it illegal for blacks and whites to get married, Would Obama be our president elect?
Nov 9th, 2008 at 2:05pm
call it something else, NOT MARRIAGE cause it just aint!!
USB made it to the diccionary, so think up of another word that specifies a same sex union, and not try to camoflague it, i mean if you want to get out of the closet do it, get out, but dont hide behind marriage =)
chillout! i voted yes on 8, and would of've regardless what the politicians requested, it's not biggotry it's respect of minimal social standards. (we have so little these days)
Nov 9th, 2008 at 7:36pm
Government should not be involved in marriage PERIOD! It is none of your business what consenting adult I choose to marry.
Nov 10th, 2008 at 2:03pm
My fiance (of the opposite sex) is incarcerated in the State of MD. Inmates are allowed to get married all of the time after completing the required paperwork and tasks. Our wedding request was denied about a year ago. No one answered my emails or explained why our request was denied. We aren't trying to amend laws or change definitions we are just 2 people in love who want to confirm their love and get married.
Nov 10th, 2008 at 2:19pm
Fidel, I'm sorry you voted Yes on 8 and eliminated the right of equal marriage. Based on your post, it sounds like you really have a lot of fear regarding what same-sex marriage means. It isn't about "hiding" behind anything, it's about legal recognition of the love shared between two people of the same sex. It's about equal civil rights, and yes, if you voted "Yes", you are indeed a bigot. The good news is that folks under 30 have already made up their minds regarding same-sex marriage: we don't give a damn. You may have voted Yes on 8, but in a few years, your voice will become irrelevant.
Nov 10th, 2008 at 4:21pm
We are supposed to have a separation of Church and State, so no one religion is favored over any others. Or for those who wish to not believe, they have that right. If "marriage" is considered to be between a man and woman for the sake of God, then city clerks or government offices should not be issuing marriage licenses, but rather "Civil Union" contracts. This would treat all people, gay or straight equally, which is also guaranteed under our Constitution. As well, majority rule is NOT acceptable when basic rights of equality are concerned. The Constitution is also supposed to protect any minority from a majority ruling. Prop 8 was flawed and thwarted by pro-Prop 8 people who claimed (basically - lied) about how this would affect children. They are not taught about any kind of marriage in public school systems. As a society, we should be looking to a future where all people are accepted for their positive contributions, rather than the color of their skin, their religion or their sexuality. We can not truly be free unless everyone is free.
Nov 10th, 2008 at 5:32pm
It is amazing that the people that say that they are for smaller government are the one's that insist that the government says who can and cannot marry. Most of you don't realize that you are giving away your own civil liberties in the process of refusing marriage for gays and lesbians! We are one nation and what affects one group of people affects us all. Escalation of this issue is only going to send it to the United States Supreme Court where it will be have to be seen as civil rights issue and ultimately be taken out of the hands of the states to decide. So keep it up! Not only will marriage be legal in California but nationwide!
Nov 10th, 2008 at 5:47pm
It constantly amazes me what moral gutter this Country has put itself in. How we have forgotten what our roots were founded in (In God we Trust), and how little regard we give God now in anything. Thanks in no small part to the imbicils that push a new social order, much like this organization. All I can say is Thank You people of Ca, Fla, and Az for helping us preserve some level of diginity in this warped Country we now live in.
Nov 10th, 2008 at 8:00pm
Rob,
Although you may think that you and your specific religion have a claim on this country you are wrong. What makes this country so wonderful is it's diversity. There are many different people in this country with a multitude of different religious beliefs... and yes all of these beliefs should be respected. The founding fathers created a constitution which allows and encourages equal respect to all religious ideas. While I certainly respect your religious beliefs, I recognize that they have no more value than my own. As an agnostic I am not inclined to feel that gay marriage is any more immoral than straight. I do on the other hand, feel that a closed mind is immoral. In this specific case, it is immoral because you are placing your religious beliefs before American civil liberties. Not long ago women in Iran were not forced to wear burkas... but when the religious zealots gained control women were stripped of their civil liberties and forced to conform. This is an example of why there clearly needs to be a separation between church and state.
Nov 11th, 2008 at 2:35am
The passage of this law clearly defines gays as abnormal, less than human, thus not worthy of marriage. Even the American Psychiatric Association does NOT list the condition of gayness as abnormal. There is no scientific basis of this ban other than "what the Bible says". This law is dangerous and is one step closer toward arresting and imprisoning gays. It will encourage gay bashing, even hate crimes. Because this is based on religous belief, California has established itself as a baptist fundamentalist state. Now-by LAW-their belief have become YOUR beliefs whether you like it or not. I think it's dangerous when the law pokes its nose in the lives of what two consenting law abiding adults do in their private lives.
Back in the days of slavery, the law did not recognize legal marriage between slaves since they were viewed as property.
I guess the law can do whatever it wants. ANYTHING it wants as it did back then, as it is doing now.
Nov 11th, 2008 at 3:42am
Please don't hide behind tolerance when you are the one trying to force everyone to except your beliefs. Gay's and Lesbians need to stop forcing their "RELIGION" on everyone else. I do not hate gays or lesbians, but I do disagree with their "RELIGIOUS" choices of sexuality. It is my RIGHT to believe that way.
The minority or the majority does not have the RIGHT to enforce their view on society. I don't agree with ritual sacrifices either of animals, and under California law they aren't exceptable either. However, under the Gay & Lesbian argument with their belief they should have the right to marry, we all must accept everyone else's beliefs. Do you believe in murder if it's justified, robbing as long you need it. These are unfortunately common beliefs, but they are not Legal, nor should they be. So stop calling people bigots who don't believe the way you do. The people have spoken, and have put it into the highest law of the land save the U.S. Constitution, which I hope and pray is next.
Nov 11th, 2008 at 3:50am
You know there were 50,000 back alley abortions in New York alone, before it was made legal. Just like there are 18,000 "married" same sex couples in the past 4 to 5 months. What's wrong with these numbers? The first was an out and out LIE made by the abortionist to justify their position, in the argument "everyone is doing it anyway, so let's make it legal." The second one is a 18000 couples lying to themselves, thinking they outsmarted the people of California. And this time they didn't get away with it. Enough is enough, stop the lying and abide by the LAW! Which by the way states their 18000 same sex marriages are now and always will be INVALID in the state of California!
Nov 12th, 2008 at 10:58pm
Let's talk a moment about this sham called 'immutable characteristics'....
Is religion an 'immutible characteristic'? I don't think so..and yet the cornerstone of this nation is built upon freedom of religion....
The 14th Amendment will ultimately set the gays free.....
Nov 14th, 2008 at 8:17am
God did not give anyone the right to get married. The purpose of marriage is a revenue device that has been used by churches so that they could charge people a fee to get married in the eyes of their God. And for governments to tax and give benefits to people. You cannot get a marriage license from God. It comes from the government. And you do not need God to get married. You don't even need a church or a minister.
Nov 14th, 2008 at 12:19pm
I praise the name of Jesus everyday and this argument can be settled with one word...vote.
The celebrities and famous people of California campaigned against prop 8 and donated their money to make it fail. The people of California expressed their views and passed the legislation. If the government cannot respect the people that they are supposed to represent, they should be removed.
Think of this....if every decision, including the vote for our presidents, senate or house leaders was subject to be overturned, our system of democracy would fall into ruin.
The ACLU should respect the voice of the people of California and back off. This is the second time that they have spoken, don't send them back to the polls for a third time...they may defeat you in numbers that would truly make you feel disappointed.
Let prop 8 stand and same-sex couples need to make sure their rights to domestic partnerships remain secure.
Nov 14th, 2008 at 12:50pm
I think there should be some way to challenge the right of the Fed or the State to be involved in marriage at all. Doesn't marriage come from a "church rite" in the first place? Isn't the State's involvement a violation of the separation of Church and State? Since some States (and perhaps soon the Federal government) are denying rights to *some* American Citizens, as a solution, shouldn't there be a way to have marriage removed from the governments power? I can't believe that there isn't some way to force the government to either recognize the rights of all or force them to get out of the marriage business all together.
Nov 15th, 2008 at 10:27am
Okay, let me throw my 2 cents in on this debate. First, people keep talking about government infringing on their rights and that if you are for "small governemt", then you shouldn't oppose gay marriage. People, it's wasn't the "government" who cast down gay marriage, it was the people! In a free and Democratic society, it should be a majority rules. So, if the majority of the people in your state or the majority of this nation vote to cast down gay marriage, then so be it! The needs and wants of the many, should out-weigh the needs and wants of a few.
Second, those of you who keep referring to "seperation of church and state". Read history! Rather you want to accept it or not, this country was founded on religion. That's why you see "In God We Trust" on our currency. That's why you see the Ten Commandments in older courthouses. Our founding fathers would roll over in their graves if they saw how warped this country has become. Please remember, it says that we have "Freedom of Religion".....not "Freedom from Religion"!
Nov 15th, 2008 at 3:58pm
Marriage is a sacred union between the man and woman getting married and God. Why would anyone, homosexual or athiest, want to get married anyway if they don't want a union between them and God? For them, marriage shouldn't matter--it's just a "piece of paper" anyway, right? And to the ACLU--please stop showing your broken down videos of homosexuals playing the "victim", it's insulting to them and they as people should be shown with respect, not as a political ploy to push your agenda.
Nov 15th, 2008 at 4:23pm
the ACLU is a disgrace to the United States of America. It's liberal, socialist, immoral government-funded groups such as this that demoralize and decay our society from the inside out! Gay marriage is an OXYMORON and should NEVER be permitted. Shame on Massachusetts and New Hampshire! The U.S. will NOT continue if this immoral behavior is tolerated!
Nov 15th, 2008 at 4:30pm
And by the way, Preston, this country WAS founded on CHRISTIAN values. George Washington noted that. This country was set up to escape religious persecution by the governmental Catholic chuch of Europe. Colonists came here to practice Christianity as a Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Catholic, what have you. Nonetheless, it was a CHRISTIAN nation founded on CHRISTIAN values. Not Buddhism, not Taoism, and not Islam!! You can believe how you wish, but don't tell Rob HE's incorrect when it is YOU that have your facts screwed up. Everyone that denies Christ will pay the price, and those who wish to practice outside the Bible should set up their own country somewhere FAR from these United States!!!
Nov 16th, 2008 at 12:09am
As someone once said, "Civil rights is not a popularity contest."
Tradition needs to be broken sometimes. Otherwise, blacks would still be in the cotton fields and women would still be subservient to men.
Religion (and Mormon money) stopped gay and lesbian couples from receiving the rights that they deserve.
Government has no reason to ban gay marriage. Court houses' doors should be wide open. However, I do believe it is up to a church to marry gay couples in the name of God. Forcing them to marry gay couples, when it is against their religious doctrine, is obviously a violation of their freedom of religion.
It's funny... even atheists get married.
Nov 16th, 2008 at 12:31am
Prop 8 is not about religion or God: it's about one thing, people's Civil Rights! What's the fear behind two people of the same sex getting married? Are these people going to Hell because of they choose to love each other and marry? Will the people who voted "no" on Prop 8 go to Hell! Will the world come to an end if gay people started getting married? NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I could care less if a man married a chicken! It's none of my business and doesn't affect anyone except the man and the chicken! The same idea applies to two homosexual people! There's nothing wrong with gay people and there's nothing wrong with them getting married!
NOW BRING ON THE REBUTTLE...I'LL DEBATE ANY ONE OF YOU TWISTED BIGOTS WHO BELIEVE OTHERWISE & WIN EVERY TIME!!!!!!!!!!!
Nov 16th, 2008 at 12:46am
Proof that fundamentalists selectively quote the Bible:
A lesson about the book of Leviticus . . .
Homophobic fundamentalists often quote two particular verses that seem to be against gay people. These two verses, both of which appear in the book of Leviticus, are . . .
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." (Leviticus 18:22)
and . . .
"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)
Below, we'll take a look at other scripture verses that are in the exact same book (Leviticus) as the above verse. This exercise proves that those preachers who are so enthusiastic about quoting the book of Leviticus to affirm their personal prejudice against people who are gay or lesbian become awfully quiet when it comes to other verses that appear in the very same book.
Remember, this isn't about faith whatsoever. It's about people who have pre-existing anti-gay prejudice in their hearts. They choose the Christian Bible as the tool with which they attempt to affirm and legitimize that pre-existing prejudice.
Sadly, the truth is that they just don't like gay people.
"For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9)
Imagine what would happen today if we killed every child who was disrespectful to his parents. Fundamentalists explain this verse away, saying that it is part of the Old Levitical Holiness Code and is not meant to be taken literally.
But the above verse is just a mere 3 verses before Leviticus 20:13, one of their favorite anti-gay scriptures which, of course, they do choose to apply literally.
It's just incredible, isn't it?
Fundamentalists change their entire methodology of scriptural interpretation when it suits their purpose, even when dealing with verses that are a just couple of sentences away from each other!
"If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has discovered her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from her people." (Leviticus 20:18)
Imagine what would happen today if we deported every man and woman who had ever had sex together while the woman was having her period. Fundamentalists decline the opportunity to take this verse literally, which is merely 5 verses after Leviticus 20:13.
"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property."
(Leviticus 25:44-45)
Did you ever wonder where racist, uneducated people in the 19th century got the idea that slaves were just property and not people? Directly from the above verse, which fundamentalists do not, of course, take literally.
"Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." (Leviticus 19:27)
"Bible-believing" fundamentalists never preach against the evils of shaving, as they do not take this verse literally for our day. Of course, they most certainly would do so if they had a personal bias against shaving, but apparently, they do not.
"...and the swine, though it divides the hoof, having cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud, is unclean to you." (Leviticus 11:7)
As you can see, the book of Leviticus also prohibits the eating of pork (a swine is a pig). Of course, fundamentalists do not choose to use this verse to preach against eating pork. Sadly, however, they have no problem abusing the Bible to condemn gay and lesbian people. Remember, it's about their personal prejudice against gay people, not about a true desire to understand what the Bible actually says.
"...do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material." (Leviticus 19:19)
Farmers in this country almost always grow more than one kind of crop in their fields. In fact, they often must do so for ecological reasons. Fundamentalists do not apply this verse literally. If they were to preach against farmers, there would be an uproar, and rightfully so.
Fundamentalists also ignore the Biblical command to not wear clothes that have two different kinds of material. The shirts that many fundamentalists are often seen wearing must be a cotton/polyester blend, the most common in the United States of America. They may be "Bible believing" Christians, but this is yet another verse that they don't believe should be applied to today.
An "abomination?"
Fundamentalists also like to use Leviticus 18:22 to justify their anti-gay prejudice. That verse says, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." Perhaps you have heard some people refer to gay people as an "abomination." They get the idea directly from Leviticus 18:22.
But did you know...
• The Bible says that eating shrimp and lobster is an abomination:
"But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:10)
"They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination." (Leviticus 11:11)
"Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales; that shall be an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:12)
In conclusion . . .
The above exercise proves that anti-gay fundamentalists selectively quote the Bible. They enthusiastically and openly embrace those parts of the Bible which affirm and justify their own personal, pre-existing prejudice against gay people, while declining to become as enthusiastic about verses like the ones listed above.
After all, how many times have you heard a fundamentalist say that eating shellfish was an abomination? But they sure don't hesitate to say it about gay people, do they?
What does that tell you?
By far the largest force that's killing the sanctity of marriage is DIVORCE!!! 40% of all marriages end in Divorce. Let's make divorce Illegal since THAT'S the REAL problem here. So what's the meesage we're sending to our children? Get married whenever yout want... and get a divorce whenever you want! Practice what you preach!!!
NO ON H8!!! PEACE!!! LOVE!!! NO WAR!!!
Nov 16th, 2008 at 12:47am
The main reason that prop 8 passed was due to the LIES that were spewed by their campaign.
Here's a list of Facts...
Facts v. Fiction
Proposition 8 would eliminate fundamental rights for a group of Californians.
It’s unconstitutional and flat out wrong!
Fiction: Prop 8 doesn’t discriminate against gay people.
Fact: Prop 8 is simple: it eliminates the rights for same-sex couples to marry. Prop 8 would deny equal protections and write discrimination against one group of people—lesbian and gay people—into our state constitution.
Fiction: Teaching children about same-sex marriage will happen here unless we pass Prop 8.
Fact: Not one word in Prop 8 mentions education. And no child can be forced, against the will of their parents, to be taught anything about health and family issues at school. California law prohibits it.
California’s top educators including Superintendent of Schools Jack O’Connell and California Teachers all agree: Prop 8 has nothing to do with education.
Fiction: Churches could lose their tax-exemption status.
Fact: The court decision regarding marriage specifically says “no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”
Fiction: A Massachusetts case about a parent’s objection to the school curriculum will happen here.
Fact: California gives parents an absolute right to remove their kids and opt-out of teaching on health and family instruction they don’t agree with. The opponents know that California law already covers this and Prop 8 won’t affect it, so they bring up an irrelevant case in Massachusetts.
Fiction: Four Activist Judges in San Francisco…
Fact: Prop 8 is about eliminating a fundamental right. Judges didn’t grant the right, the constitution guarantees the right. Proponents of Prop 8 use an outdated and stale argument that judges aren’t supposed to protect rights and freedoms. Prop 8 is about whether Californians are willing to amend the constitution for the sole purpose of eliminating a fundamental right for one group of citizens.
Fiction: If Prop 8 isn’t passed, people can be sued over personal beliefs.
Fact: California’s laws already prohibit discrimination against anyone based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. This has nothing to do with marriage.
Fiction: Pepperdine University supports the Yes on 8 campaign.
Fact: The University has publicly disassociated itself from Professor Richard Peterson of Pepperdine University, who is featured in the ad, and has asked to not be identified in the Yes on 8 advertisements.
Fiction: Unless Prop 8 passes, California parents won’t have the right to object to what their children are taught in school.
Fact: California law clearly gives parents and guardians broad authority to remove their children from any health instruction if it conflicts with their religious beliefs or moral convictions.
Stop spreading lies and get your FACTS straight!!!
Nov 16th, 2008 at 1:28am
Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood. - Coretta Scott King
Nov 16th, 2008 at 3:24pm
GodBlessAmerica, it seems to me you are making the argument that majority rule has said that prop. 8 is right. Well, realize that that argument violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as adopted by the United Nations. It does say in article 21, section 3, that "The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government," but article 7 states "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law," and article 30 states " Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein." Majority rule is important, but their decision here cannot be respected as it discriminates by law against a group of people, and therefore violates Article 30. It should be the government's job to ensure that all groups receive the equal and unalienable human rights that anyone, be they homosexuals or not, deserves, and therefore they should overturn the decision, as proposition 8 is a blatant violation of human rights.
Nov 18th, 2008 at 2:41pm
Would it be possible for gay and lesbian couples to marry by common law? This would involve legal name change by one or both parties, spending the required amount of time in a state that recognizes common-law marriage, and living as a married couple. Also, does any state have the right not to recognize marriages performed legally in another state?
Nov 19th, 2008 at 2:11pm
(Would it be possible for gay and lesbian couples to marry by common law? This would involve legal name change by one or both parties, spending the required amount of time in a state that recognizes common-law marriage, and living as a married couple. Also, does any state have the right not to recognize marriages performed legally in another state?)
Unfortunately, the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" basically says that states, and the federal government, are not required to recognize anything but an opposite-sex marriage, even if it'd legal in the state in which the marriage originally occurred.
Nov 19th, 2008 at 7:52pm
Let's make it simple. Let's make all unions Civil Unions. Let's call legal "marriages" Civil Unions for both homo and heterosexuals. If you choose, you can have a religious ceremony and call it marriage. If the definition of Marriage is one man and one woman, let's take marriage of the table legally. Let's make marriage a private matter and choice. Everyone wins that way except it takes away from the ignorant morons from having an argument for legal discrimination.
Nov 19th, 2008 at 11:46pm
Why does the ACLU not provide the public with the names of their members. What's the big secret ? Why do you sneak around like members of the KKK who hide under sheets. Instead you hide behind the guise of protecting freedom while your ultimate goal is to destroy it.
Nov 20th, 2008 at 3:12am
Bravo ACLU, keep up the good fight...
Too many times the majority wants to take away the rights of the minority and I think defeating this legislation is absolutely necessary. I think this sets a great precedent for me and my wives. Although we are in love and I support all of them, our local police keep threatening me with arrest. Clearly the legal system has no right to impose its rules upon my personal relations. They even had the nerve to try and charge me because one of my wives was 14! Again, what a scandal. Clearly the united states has no role in definining marriage in any way.
Nov 20th, 2008 at 1:48pm
The state and the people have every right to decide what they will define as marriage. If not, how about persons who want to marry their sisters, multiple wives, children, or the mentally defective?
As to recognition of marriage by the state and the benefits it affords, many people and groups are discriminated against by the state. What about people who are frankly cannot find a mate? What about single men and women who have no interest in marriage? What about young men and women in US military academies who cannot get married? Do marriage benefits discriminate against them? Absolutely. Do taxes to fund our schools discriminate against people without children? Absolutely. Do laws which afford protection to the old and young discrimiate against others? Does affirmative action discriminate against some minority groups at the expense of others? Absolutely.
These are all parts of the social contract we deal with as members of this country. What dictates this social contract? Democracy. The people have spoken...
PS, this site is heavily edited by the moderators and it is my guess that this will never be posted. Please see the craftily written disclaimer that basically says "we will let people see what we want" in their blog header. My impression is that the only criticisms of ACLU policies that are allowed here are those written by raving loons (or likely the moderators themselves) which facilitate the agenda at hand. I would strongly suggest readers of this site who have the capacity for independent thought (PS, this may require a little introspection beyond blaming the world for all of your ills) look into this organization a little further, maybe even consider their origins and history from a critical source. Thanks comrades...
An Ex ACLU member
Nov 21st, 2008 at 5:39pm
Matthew - how do you know God made them that way? There is no scientific evidence being gay is genetic. Studies have shown most people who identify themselves as gays have been sexually abused in the past.
Why is gay marriage a fundamental right? If this were so, why would be going over this now - this would have been a fundamental right for centuries already.
Nov 21st, 2008 at 10:31pm
I'm going to put on the California Ballot an initiative to PROHIBIT THE TEACHING OF CHRISTIANITY. Then when 55% of Californians agree, that'll be the end of the freedom to teach our kids to believe in garbage without the first shred of proof, and maybe we'll see an enlightened populace in another 50 years.
After all - if the majority is "right" for being in the majority, then we can start bashing just anyone we please.
Nov 22nd, 2008 at 2:46am
intellectualize, legitimatize, rationalize, proselytize...blah blah blah
all you want
bottom line is
people are all equal and should be treated as such.
anything less is wrong
Nov 22nd, 2008 at 4:05am
How can any of you sit there and say another HUMAN BEING, is NOT worthy of the ame HUMAN RIGHTS as you are? Sight unseen how does two men threaten your marriage? or 2 women? or any other couple? The sancity of marriage only works inside of church. and since all marriage started out as a transfer of property and NOT BASED IN LOVE. why shouldnt we MAKE IT WHAT IT WE WANT IT TO BE ABOUT. make it about love 2 people in love pledging before whomever that they want to be together. They say that the idea of marriage is eternal it has never changed BS ..
A woman was a posession her only worth was in what property she could bring into a marriage and if she could bear a man sons. Look around people thats not what marriage is about now poeple.
Busniesses marry all the time LERAGALLY. with contracts and all prisided over by a dulky apointed judge.. HELLO an inanimate object can marry but 2 people cannot? to all gay people around the US lets start our own religion so that the government cannot prevent gay marriage.
Because the state cannot dictate tenants in a religion. hell they want to exclude gay rights from politics fine lets exclude them from our religion seperation of church and state. the only way to be excluded from our religion is to be unable to accept that gays and straight people can co exisit in harmony. and love is not a bad thing. ( after all it took 2 straight people to make one gay person!)
Just joking but we ca call the religion the "Church of JESUS Christ get you head out of your ass!"
Brought to you by a stright woman with 2 kids, a happy husband, and happy marriage. I hope every gay person reading this gets to have the same oppourtunity SOON!
Nov 22nd, 2008 at 4:15am
Would it be possible for gay and lesbian couples to marry by common law? This would involve legal name change by one or both parties, spending the required amount of time in a state that recognizes common-law marriage, and living as a married couple. Also, does any state have the right not to recognize marriages performed legally in another state?
How about the fact that through the un and agreements with other countries the US LEGAL SYSTEM is required to recognize marriages from other countries even if they would not be recognized here including gay marriages.
SO FORIGNERS HAVE MORE RIGHTS THAN OUR LEGAL CITIZENS. Tecnicaly doesnt that mean that because we will and have recognized marriages from forigne ciountries that the gay marriage issue is grandfathered in? NOW thats somthing the ACLU should look into
Nov 22nd, 2008 at 8:42am
Post number 11 is right.
It should be a "marriage" if the religious groups approves it and a "civil union" for everyone who "unites" using a government issued contract. You can do both if you so choose.
This is a good solution to a situation which divides us and leaves many gay people without partners and legal status.
Nov 22nd, 2008 at 9:21am
The people may have spoken but apparently 52% of them are wrong. I am an atheist and I do not beleive in God although I would never think less of anyone who does - because frankly what the heck does it have to do with me what you beleive. i guess that is a fundemental difference between me and most of the people commenting on this site. I just can not beleive that people can be so tribal over an issue like this. We are talking about love here - and you may not be comfortable with the idea of gay marriage, in fact the idea might make you sick - but people - what makes you think you have the right to deny people rights based on who they decide to love. Remember I'm not saying who they want to kill, molest, rob, cheat, set on fire or run over with a truck I'm saying LOVE. What harm - or even what impact - will it ultimately really have on your life if two people make a commitment to eachother either just on paper or in the eyes of god if they beleive in god.
Using the excuse "there is lot's of inequality all over the place" as some kind of justification for this inequality is just plain nonesense. Someone earlier said something like "what about people who just can't find a mate? Where are there tax benifits and such" Do you think that justifies removing rights from people?
The moment that atheists like myself are no longer allowed to marry then I will support Prop8
The moment that marriages can no longer take place on ships or "elvis wedding chapels" off the Vegas Strip then I will support Prop8
The moment that the 1800 lgbt couples who got married are struck down by god I will support prop8 (and start to rethink my atheism lol)
People over and over keep saying they wish "the gays" would stop "shoving this marriage thing down their throats". Well seriously - why don't you stop shoving your bigotry down my throat. You don't want us in your club and that's understndable if not a little pathetic - but luckily the legal system recognizes that the majority is not always right (such as when interacial marriage was not passed by the majority)and wheter you ike it or not you will need to make room for us. In 50 years people will look back on this issue and wonder how prop8 supporters could have not seen their inherent bigotry - and I will be right beside them wondering too.
Nov 22nd, 2008 at 12:30pm
When are we going to grow up and make our country what its suppose to be!! Grow Up!!!
Nov 22nd, 2008 at 4:07pm
John Hanner -- great lesson on the old testament. Now would you expand it to cover the new testament and actual Christianity. It can easily be done, because you know Paul was gay.
Also,our children will laugh at us when they look back at the fuss and try to imagine a USA that discriminated against homosexuals just like I can't even imagine owning slaves, or not being able to vote(I'm a woman) or to own property, or wear pants, etc...
Nov 22nd, 2008 at 9:13pm
I don't get what the problem is with letting gays marry. If somebody is opposed to gay marriage, fine: don't marry a gay. The same as if somebody is opposed to interracial or interfaith marriage, fine: don't marry somebody of a different race or faith.
Nothing about the legalization of gay marriage FORCES you to marry somebody of the same sex, just like Loving v Virginia doesn't FORCE you to marry somebody of a different race.
Hell, you don't have to marry anybody at all if you don't want to.
Nov 24th, 2008 at 10:09am
Reigious people hating in the name of God again? I just want to comment that if you read the posts of obviously religious people here, that it is a prime example of why we should get past religion already. It causes too much ignorance and hatred. Maybe these people would be ignorant with or without religion, but we shouldn't be teaching ignorant sheep to hate.
Look at these hateful, holier-than-thou fools! Church and state need to be utterly separated.
Nov 26th, 2008 at 3:00pm
Sorry for my ignorance, but could someone tell me how a gay marriage ceremony concludes? In a traditional wedding, the couple are pronounced man and wife. What is the gay equivalent?
Nov 27th, 2008 at 2:17am
What the heck is the right-wingers obsession with this belief that gay people just LOVE to eat fecal matter???? Are right-winger really this insane?